Wolfowitz's much shredded credibility

White house shifts stance on Wolfowitz
ST, 17 May 07
By Derwin Pereiraus
Bureau Chief In Washington

The Bush administration, responding to growing international pressure, signalled that it would be willing to accept a change of leadership at theWorld Bank. In a major shift – and with the bank yesterday set to resume deliberations overthe future of the scandal-hit Paul Wolfowitz – the White House said “all options are on the table”. Until now, the White House had stoutly backed Mr Wolfowitz.

Its new position,which comes after it failed to rally support among its key allies, could pavethe way for Mr Wolfowitz’s resignation if the bank drops its drive to declarehim unfit to remain in office.Mr Wolfowitz had pleaded with its executive board on Tuesday to let him keep his job.He presented the 24-member board with a package of documents he said proved he acted in good faith in arranging a promotion and pay rise for his Libyan-borngirlfriend Shaha Riza, a fellow bank employee.

A special internal panel had concluded on Monday that his involvement in thecontroversy represented a conflict of interest that broke bank rules.

Mr Wolfowitz, who appeared to be more conciliatory on Tuesday, saying “I am notwithout fault”, detailed his efforts to remove himself from the handling of Ms Riza’s transfer. He also vowed to change his management approach, which has riled bank staff since he took over.
Meanwhile, tensions continued to simmer between the US, which backed Mr Wolfowitz for the post, and some European countries, which reluctantly confirmed him in 2005 despite misgivings about his role in the Iraq war.

The White House believes the former deputy secretary of defence is being targeted for being an architect of the war – making it even more determined to stand behind him. But mounting opposition has made this difficult. Even more glaring was theAmerican failure to win the support of G-7 countries. With the possible exception of Japanese support, the US found itself increasingly isolated.That could explain why the Bush administration is now qualifying its resolute support for Mr Wolfowitz by adopting a “two-track” approach.

The first track would entail the bank endorsing his leadership and recognisingthat his offence did not deserve a firing. While he had made mistakes, so hadothers.Once that has been resolved, White House spokesman Tony Snow said, “at somepoint in the future there are going to be conversations about the properstewardship of the World Bank”.“In that sense... all options are on the table."

Summary

This article basically deals with how US has shifted her stance on Paul Wolfowitz, from that of an extremely supportive one to that of a less supportive one, seeing her inability to rouse more countries into supporting the current World Bank chief.

Comments

If analysed carefully, US's change in decision to stop backing her former US Deputy Secretary of Defence , Paul Wolfowitz, is not that surprising a move after all.

I feel that this shift in decision occurred because the US has, despite its fervent endeavours in the past month, failed to garner any support for Wolfowitz. The reason for this is obvious. Wolfowitz, in his term at the World Bank, has attempted to apply a system of 'military leadership', by quelling dissent among its employees, resulting in mass discontentment. Moreover, he has threatened third-world countries with less funding, in an attempt to 'tackle' corruption.

It then seems mind-boggling on how such an incompetent man could be appointed to the job. In reality, it isn't. This whole process of electing the World Bank's chief is based on a system of tradition, where the US, with the largest stake of 16% within the Bank chooses the chief. This highly irrational process effectively prevents competition from European counterparts, allowing for wild cards such as Wolfowitz to enter the system.

I would say that another reason for countries denying Wolfowitz a second chance would be his refusal to admit his own mistake. Even though it has been extensively documented that Wolfowitz showed favourtism, going so far as to conceal Ms Riza's salary from top bank officials, he denied the charge, calling it a 'smear campaign' carried out by his 'adversaries'. The panel investigating Wolfowitz also revealed that he saw himself as "[an] outsider to whom the [bank's] standards did not apply."

But let us be fair to the man. Such a whole hive of dispute about him may be for other political purposes too. For example, during the recent IMF and World Bank meetings, officials chose to focus on the scandal instead of "thorny issues such as China's yuan exchange rate or the huge US budget deficit". A convenient diversion nonetheless.

Alternatively, Wolfowitz could also be taking this much flak because of his principal role in the Iraq war, one of the most disputable decisions made by the US in history. This scandal might then serve as a convenient excuse for the manifestation of anti-Wolfowitz sentiments.

In light of the above, it seems no wonder that US has decided to tone down her support for Wolfowitz. In fact, I would say that this is a wise move, though it came a little late, for President Bush's already well critiqued government due to events such as the poor state response to Hurricane Katrina does not need further criticism.

However, the views I aired above may have been biased in their own rights due to the widespread condemnation of Wolfowitz by the media, which may have influenced them, causing me to unfairly discriminate against Wolfowitz without fully evaluating his merits.

In conclusion, I would like to say that whether or not Wolfowitz quits now then depends on his pride, since his major and sole source of support has now deserted him.

Word Count: 490 words (not inclusive of quotes)